Hard drives question

[impetus]

When performing a simultaneous read/write, disk-intensive task (in this case, converting 4-6 GB .VOB movie files to DIVX) is it better to:

A. have the source and destination on different hard drives

B. have the source and destination on the same hard drive


I've always sort of assumed "A" but I could come up with arguments for both. Using two drives allows each drive to focus on one task instead of a single drive trying to access 2 locations on the disk at the same time. Then again, a single-drive operation avoids a disk-to-disk data transfer.

I'm guessing the answer is more complex than this (RAM, drive cache), but what do you guys think?

By "better", I mean any faster, using less system resources, or less hard on the drives.

[Roofus]

If both drives are internal, then definitely A. If one of the drives is USB, I'm not as sure.

[impetus]

Thanks for the response, Roofus. I've worked under that assumption but it's nice to have confirmation.

[TheRedFox]

is it possible to hook a laptop hard drive into a desktop computer with some sort of converter? if so what would said converter be called?

[Roofus]

is it possible to hook a laptop hard drive into a desktop computer with some sort of converter? if so what would said converter be called?

Yo

[TheRedFox]

is it possible to hook a laptop hard drive into a desktop computer with some sort of converter? if so what would said converter be called?

Yo

sweet! i'll remember that for when/if i get a new hdd for my lappy.

[impetus]

Alternately, if its a permanent change you could buy a 2.5" enclosure and transform it into an external.

[TheRedFox]

Alternately, if its a permanent change you could buy a 2.5" enclosure and transform it into an external.

not a bad idea, either.

[az_bont]

When performing a simultaneous read/write, disk-intensive task (in this case, converting 4-6 GB .VOB movie files to DIVX) is it better to:

A. have the source and destination on different hard drives

B. have the source and destination on the same hard drive


I've always sort of assumed "A" but I could come up with arguments for both. Using two drives allows each drive to focus on one task instead of a single drive trying to access 2 locations on the disk at the same time. Then again, a single-drive operation avoids a disk-to-disk data transfer.

I'm guessing the answer is more complex than this (RAM, drive cache), but what do you guys think?

By "better", I mean any faster, using less system resources, or less hard on the drives.

I've got just over 2TB of storage space spread across one internal and four external USB hard drives, and I've always noticed better performance when extracting compressed archives or simply copying files when going from one to another, rather than on the same drive. It makes perfect sense, as if it were the same drive, the disk's head would be constantly going back and forth between the source and destination position on the platter(s).

However, I wouldn't really classify video encoding as being especially disk intensive, as even a monster of an overclocked quad-core could still only encode DivX video at a small fraction of the maximum read/write speed of an ordinary hard drive--the conversion speed should therefore be identical either way. However, with separate drives you would perhaps be putting a little less wear on the drive from having to seek back and forth.

[Roofus]

However, I wouldn't really classify video encoding as being especially disk intensive, as even a monster of an overclocked quad-core could still only encode DivX video at a small fraction of the maximum read/write speed of an ordinary hard drive--the conversion speed should therefore be identical either way. However, with separate drives you would perhaps be putting a little less wear on the drive from having to seek back and forth.

Are you sure about that? On my quad, I gain up to 15-20fps encoding to Xvid when going from one drive to another.

[az_bont]

However, I wouldn't really classify video encoding as being especially disk intensive, as even a monster of an overclocked quad-core could still only encode DivX video at a small fraction of the maximum read/write speed of an ordinary hard drive--the conversion speed should therefore be identical either way. However, with separate drives you would perhaps be putting a little less wear on the drive from having to seek back and forth.

Are you sure about that? On my quad, I gain up to 15-20fps encoding to Xvid when going from one drive to another.

I suppose it would depend on how often the encoder writes to disk.

[Calavera]

is it possible to hook a laptop hard drive into a desktop computer with some sort of converter? if so what would said converter be called?

Yo

I've got something just like that still in the box only used it a few times. I'd be glad to sell you mine for cheaper than neweggs price. $27 seems like a lot for one of those to me.